I’m not really one for breakfast television, but I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who’s seen the new ABC2 Breakfast show, which debuts today. It will also be streamed online. With Virginia Trioli as one of the hosts (the other is Barrie Cassidy, filling in for Peter Lloyd – who’s got some legal problems), I’m not hopeful that it will provide much of an alternative to the rest of the press gallery trivial horse race agenda of the day coverage. It’s not a very hopeful time generally for the ABC’s public affairs reportage and analysis, with the Radio National cutbacks and journos such as Fran Kelly, Chris Uhlmann and Michael Brissenden constantly reciting opposition talking points and doing their world weary cynicism thing. Print has always prided itself on setting the tv agenda and the ABC’s political reporters seem to take their cues from whatever the current News Limited line is. With Fairfax descending further into celebrity drivel and Eastern suburbs navel gazing, it’s a huge pity when the scarce resources of the national broadcaster go to waste in hunting somewhere at the back of the trivial and insipid press gallery pack.
And speaking of News Limited and the ABC, Philosopher King Rupe is delivering this year’s Boyer lectures, billed as “Big Ideas”. “A Golden Age of Freedom” – so far – seems to be part weird Goldwater/Reagan fantasyland with a 19th century Australian bush legend manifest destiny twist combined with the denunciation of “bludgers” and a predictable amalgam of centre-right neo-liberal talking points. The only notable questions raised are what he’s doing there in the first place – even putting politics aside, why should a media mogul be assumed to be one of the “great minds examining issues and values” – and why Murdoch’s schtick resembles Paul Kelly bombast more than the crazed Tom Switzerism represented in his flagship newspaper’s editorial pages. The answer to the second question probably is that he just doesn’t care that much about what his Australian operation gets up to. The answer to the first, and to the general decline in the standard of the ABC’s independence and distinctiveness in current affairs? Its Howardisation must be part of it, but there’s got to be more to it than that.
Funny, I was just reading Nicholas Kristoff in the NY Times and thinking how this like read like the stuff the “Age” was doing five or six years ago. Only Davidson seems left lingering from that last flourishing.
QAlso, Errol Simper’s comments in OZ re the Aboriginal history SBS doco, as an example of how seldom media do this once-widespread genre is still seen on.
Since the AUSFTA, the “harmonization” of Aussie MSM continues apace, with the Vandals, from Rudd and Conroy a herd of cretinous TV and media executives like Mark Scott ( the other day trying to distance himself from the downfall of Radio National) now flagrantly dismembers what remains of Australian historical and cultural memory; our access point to reality and participation.
Congrats, Kim. Excellent summary.
Cannot understand the ALP, since time and time again its bacon was saved over decades by free media, yet it continues its Philistine approach to ideas, thinking and intellect with a hatred that was not there even under Howard.
Labeling the Murdoch talks “Big Ideas” is a bit of a stretch – he’s not one of your great intellects. I got much the same feel from it as you, Kim. It’s obvious he hasn’t realised that everyone is sick to death of reform (or churn, as I prefer to call it), that growth is not necessarily a Good Thing, and that climate change is much more of a threat than everything else put together. The “Clash of Cultures” thing was a bit tedious as well, seeing as the real clash of cultures is between those of us who still adhere to the values of the enlightenment on one side and the various hard-right ideologues and religious and economic fundamentalists of all kinds on the other.
I doubt if I’ll be bothering with the ABC’s breakfast TV – I don’t care for television in the morning, as it’s a big distraction when I’m trying to get ready for work. At least with the radio (irritating though Fran Kelly is theses days) I can wander around doing stuff while I absorb the news of the day.
Oh, a very Larvatus Prodeo kind of critique, where the most important news is left-right-left Canberra party politics. Having spent just spent a number of years in Old Blighty, I am actually surprised at the quality of the ABC compared to the BBC. Not much celebrity, not much hyperbole and most of all, a proper mix of local, national, regional and international news. Especially regional. Europe might not bother existing as far as the BBC is concerned, but here we have the excellent ABC Asia Pacific News every day on ABC2 (from the Australia Network satellite service), and Asia Pacific Focus every week. The 730 Report and Lateline really are well-put together, solid current affairs, too. I am not saying the ABC should not be subject to critique, or even that it is not bruised by the last decade of invented “culture wars” but after living through the celebrity-obsessed, attention-span-of-a-goldfish BBC, I am pleasantly surprised, even relieved.
So far a well-produced breakfast program on ABC2, calm, focussed and at the right pace. Content? Local and international news, comment, media trawl and NO ADS. It makes a huge difference first thing in the morning! Grab a bite of news with breakfast as you pass the telly.
Kate, the problem is this is not an addition to, the common wealth of broadsheet.
It comes at the expense of other sectors, like Radio National. If it follows recent trends elsewhere also with SBS, Fairfax etc, it will be something relatively devoid of relevance, coming at the expense of substance.
SBS in particular are notorious for “burning” large sums of money on tripe, and the ABC has followed suit enthusiastically. We can have truckloads of promos on the ABC, but this comes at the expense of quality TV and radio, like with the Religion show on ABC National just axed on the basis of, “lack of money”.
As far as the writer can see, now that the pattern is easily discernible, the process is underlyingly ideological. We have “happy” stories; yeah sure, a la 1984 or Brave New World; up to our necks in Kerry-Anne land.
The rubbish is employed as an opportunity by management to remove precisely that real and usually controversial, information that people need to make real decisons about living in the real world. Meanwhile, a troublesome outpost of broad sheet is “harmonised” into the Murdochist world view at the cost of a relation to reality for the public.
Out in the REAL world, we eventually get the sort of situation that developed with the previously inconceivable Wall St Heist: Deregulated through resulting ignorance from dumbing down over decades; a rip off of trillions-plus of dollars, while no one understands the nature and or significance of, including for the consequences for billions of people.
So we stay in a sort of Aristotelian Dark Ages; the peasants remain entranced by the modern equivalent of trinkets and beads; wampum and rum and the way forwarded is successfully blocked by the likes of Dick Cheney and Rupert Murdoch and their ilk. Never be fooled, btw, about who runs this country: Rudd is just a limb.
I watched the first 15 minutes this morning and I don’t know whether it’s the Barry Cassidy thing, but it came across as Good Morning Insiders.
One of the first stories was the US election where the reporter crapped on about the possibility that Obama may lose because he’s winning in the polls and so people won’t bother to vote (this is a stupid for a number of reasons, one being…
Bazza’s next question was then about record early voting numbers, which the reporter decsribed as “historic” but no one can be sure where these votes are going due to retrictions on what can be asked at exit polling. she then failed to mention these record numbers are in states with high African American populations…
Ah well
Yeah, if it’ s so good, put it on ABC 1!
Never mind employing it as a means for house training the public to accept multiplicity of channelling as meaning a multiplicity of content.
It’s all so “grooming”; the audience is like the latest six yo prospective victim of a skilled veteran paedophile.
How the ABC has become whored for the commercial industry of applied behavioural science and mass psychology.
Heh, and risk annoying hordes of kids who wake up early to watch tv?
You don’t like the idea of multiple chanelling for broadcasters? I for one will be happy when regularly scheduled shows don’t get cancelled for sporting events!
The idea that Murdoch should get a gig as a great thinker is ludicrous. At least he should be required to acknowledge his writers, although I don’t doubt the overall themes are his own.
I only caught a quick snippet on the news last night while I was eating. Did he really say we have ‘a 19th century education system’? WTF does that even mean? What does he regard as a ’21st century’ education system? Can anyone explain or was it just predictable grumpy old man windbaggery?
I’m surprised the government doesn’t see that in the long run it is in Labor’s partisan political interest (as well, of course, as in the broader public interest) to have a strong reporting alternative to Murdoch and Fairfax. That such an alternative will often cause the ALP immediate pain is a price worth paying.
.
Maybe we’re wrong and they do see it. Maybe they won’t put money in to the ABC until they’ve replaced Howard’s Board with people interested in seeing this alternative happen. Or maybe they’re waiting for the Dirty Digger to die and commercial imperatives to trump ideology at News Ltd (a universally trivial and disengaged media might also suit the ALP, though not of course the public interest).
.
But it looks more likely that they’re once again practicing great tactics with lousy strategy.
I heard the whole thing, Ken, and you didn’t miss much. I doubt I’ll bother with the rest of the series, as he exhausted all the right-wing talking points in yesterday’s little effort.
Quick!
Off the top of your head.
Can you think of anyone LESS qualified than Rupert to lecture Australians on anything?
#12 – John Howard … coming soon to Our ABC
DD, I despair for the country even of intelligent groups like this one struggle to the point.
At last someone,in the form of yourself, has given substance to the immanent issue; the real question.
Why doesn’t the ALP see what the rest of us see, in our sleeps even?
Conroy, Mar’n, Rudd himself, Brumby, Costa, Lennon and his successors, Smith, countless factional hacks in the Senate.
They are the problem, not the solution. And the proposition DD puts proves it.
Good post Kim, and great ccmments from Paul Walter in particular.
The dumbing down of the ABC, its constant recycling of News Ltd and opposition talking points, its refusal to engage meaningfully in issues that may involve controversy, and its adherance to the spurious notion of balance, renders the current ABC close to a national disgrace.
We all deserve better.
Please forgive me in advance Kim if I misunderstand your comments but I’m keen to unpack your statements here:
“It’s not a very hopeful time generally for the ABC’s public affairs reportage and analysis, with the Radio National cutbacks and journos (…) constantly reciting opposition talking points and doing their world weary cynicism thing. Print has always prided itself on setting the tv agenda and the ABC’s political reporters seem to take their cues from whatever the current News Limited line is.”
It seems to me that when a journo interviews a pollie there are usually a couple of lines of broad lines of questioning available:
1) Questioning from the political Right (usually exemplified by the Coalition “talking point of the day”)
2) Questioning from the political Left
3) Questioning the factual basis of policy formation (which itself may not necessarily be free of politicisation)
From your statement Kim, you seem unhappy for the ABC to question ALP pollies from the first perspective. Assuming that there is a broad agreement between Right and Left regarding the factual basis of the problem requiring policy formation (which naturally removes the third perspective), the only remaining alternative is to question elected officials from a Left perspective.
Now I don’t necessarily have a problem with this approach, but I’m not sure that this will produce better journalism either. My understanding of good journalism is that it is educative rather than merely reinforcing existing political values. If the ABC was to take a consistently Left line then it will struggle to effectively engage with those on the Right of the political spectrum (cf. the Murdoch press and those on the Left). All this is particularly ironic given the hatred towards the ABC already by some on the hard-Right.
Kim, I’m not sure what alternative approach you are advocating here for the ABC?
“Assuming that there is a broad agreement between Right and Left regarding the factual basis of the problem requiring policy formation (which naturally removes the third perspective)”
That’s quite an assumption. We usually get perspective one, and very occasionally two, but quite rarely three. Do you honestly think this is because the facts of the policy situation at hand (and the various possible responses to it) are broadly agreed upon? I think it’s rather that discussing the actual realities of policy wonkery is too dry, and requires research, comprehension and the application of intelligence and creative thinking on the part of the journalist.
FDB,
You are right, it IS quite an assumption. However investigation of facts is usually (but not always) reserved for investigative journalism (a la Four Corners etc) rather than interviews per se.
I guess my point is to caution against encouraging the ABC to take a stronger Left perspective in order to counteract poor Right-wing journalism. I’m not sure that this strategy will lead to a more educated Australian population – just a more partisan one.
“I guess my point is to caution against encouraging the ABC to take a stronger Left perspective in order to counteract poor Right-wing journalism.”
Yep, I figured that was your point – I was basically just saying that I (at least, and I’m sure most eyeballs watching this space) don’t actually want that. If a right-wing critique of the ALP is intellectually fruitful, do one. If a critique from the left has merit, likewise. But the thing our media generally, and increasingly the ABC, suffer a painful lack of is proper research, original perspectives and informed discussion of actual issues.
“a la Four Corners etc”
I’m curious – what would you suggest the ‘etc’ stands for in this sentence?
The strangest aspect of the mindless echoing by ABC journalists of talking points dreamed up by a far right, unrepresentative and dwindling rump in Canberra is that those guys aren’t in power any more.
It’s as if Brissenden, Fran Kelly and all haven’t twigged that Howard left the building last October. They have been brow-beaten about balance for so long by the frothing-at-the-mouth paranoid far right that they feel the need to sing for their supper in this way.
It really isn’t good journalism. They need to get out more and talk to real people, instead of spending all their time reading insane op-eds in The Australian.
That’d be “Media Watch”, FDB.
Heh.
Sad but true – some of our best journalism is expended on nothing but mopping up shitty journalism.
FDB,
I largely agree with you although I think world-weary cynicism definitely has its place.
I wonder how much of the relatively poor state of Australian journalism is due to our relatively small population? A larger population would by itself beg a more diverse market. When I lived in the Netherlands – which has a population roughly the size of Australia, I was similarly unimpressed by the standard of Dutch journalism. Nevertheless, Dutch newstands had a wide range of Euro papers, Dutch television had a wide range of global programming which meant that most Dutch people were very well informed about global events. The internet has meant that Australians can more easily plug into international news media but I think that the reliance upon the traditional media outlets will continue for some time.
Btw, excluding SBS from the discussion, I reckon Lateline & the 7.30 report can be pretty good sometimes in terms of investigative journalism.
Antonio,
I agree with your broad description. As a listener, I want to be educated & challenged. It seems that some are unhappy for Liberal Party views, policies, “talking points” to be aired. I want to hear interviewees challenged and stretched. Not fed pap.
That party attracts 35%+ of the electorate at national and state elections. The ABC is a national broadcaster. Why should it ignore such groups as the National Party, the Liberals, the Greens, etc?
The Boyer Lectures have been going for many decades. “Big Ideas” is just the current marketing ploy. Look at the past lecturers: Rupert Murdoch doesn’t stand out as an unusual choice.
Ambi, this is the sort of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. The role of the ABC is not to satisfy political parties by running their preferred lines in the guise of journalism. If there’s a need for “balance” then it can be secured by ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives is represented among interviewees, but I think the big problem is that journos don’t do their own research on stories and reflexively put to interviewees whatever the other side are saying.
That’s if I’m reading your aright!
The point is, Ambigulous that we shouldn’t be fed ‘pap’ from either political party. Surely journalists worth the description should move beyond the talking points of either side of the political divide.
Only the terminally ignorant will be ‘educated & challenged’ by having the latest talking points from either side being regurgitated by lazy and cynical journalists, as is currently the case.
OK, Mark.
If it’s a journalist just repeating a few “taliking points” supplied by another Party, yes: that’s very lazy journalism.
adrian: it’s the RESPONSE to the talking point that educates the listener, not the question, which they’re likely to have heard already in another guise, if it’s based on a factual news item or a “talking point”. Yes, the interviewee can stonewall, duck by answering a different question, etc.
BTW, I prefer to hear plenty of non-politicians on issues of public interest, partly because the pollie blighters won’t give interesting answers (are schooled not to?). So I agree with Mark there too. But some of these issues are decidedly political and journalists should interview Ministers and other pollies. N’est-ce pas?
Sure they should interview pollies, Ambi, but they don’t need to follow an asinine script in doing so, and they might do better to provide some expert perspectives as well as something of a counterpoint to spin. For instance, on the stuff about the bank guarantee, it surely should have been possible to talk to some independent folks about what was actually feasible. But we get the frame of the opposition’s attack and a government response, and that’s all, and we’re none the wiser usually.
One other thing that really annoys me is that on any financial story, most of the time, the only commentators are bank economists – who by definition have a conflict of interest a lot of the time.
A bit puzzled at what Ambig, FBR and Antonio are trying to get at.
It’s been so long since the public had a “left wing” approach to any issue you care to name, most of them wouldn’t know one if they fell over it.
4 Corners is not “left”, for god’s sake!
It’s a last remnant from the centrist, objectivist broadsheet journalism of a decade back that Mr Denmore is trying to get at.
“A bit puzzled at what Ambig, FBR and Antonio are trying to get at.”
I thought I’d been pretty clear. Assuming you mean me. Perhaps reading isn’t your strong suit?
Yes Mark,
I happened to hear “Australia Talks Back” on the market-based mortgage funds last Thursday 30th Oct, and they had Peter Martin and another commentator as their first two experts. It was refreshing not to hear pollies or bankers. Then a bloke from the Funds Association….. This is what the better Radio National programs do so well. We used to get more of that on AM, PM, and the morning show.
cheers
Paul,
Please read my comments closely. I’m not at all saying that the ABC is “Left-wing”. I’m not at all saying that 4 Corners is “Left-wing”.
I was responsing to Kim’s critique of ABC journalists in that they often repeat the opposition’s talking points of the day and is too cynical & world-weary.
Yes, and ABC online, its de-facto replacement is dire.
“Student fee smacks of unionism in disguise: Opposition” News Headline No.1. Why bother getting any comment from those involved – ie the students when you can just use the opposition’s latest press release.
And opposite, in an Australian Story promo, Richard Flannagan is described as ‘controversial author’. I’d say he’d only be controversial if you had a hard right perspective to begin with. I wonder if Gerard Henderson is ever described as controversial?
adrian, I think Gerard Henderson is only ever described as a tedious whinger.
Yes, or pontificating windbag. Not a good example, I admit.
Perhaps Andrew Bolt would’ve been a better choice. Or David Flint.
Hard not to notice the Rodentification of the ABC. Harder to turn it around, though.
Kim et alii;
No, didn’t see the ABC2 chat but heard Eposode 1 of the 2008 Boyer Lectures on Radio National [soon to be Radio Yeo's Chrsanthymum Tea or Radio Tsingtao Beer perhaps?
]
I was rather annoyed. Some of what Mr Murdoch said was quite right, of course, but I have heard equally progressive, innovative or radical opinions and suggestions up here in this part of rural Queensland from people somewhat less prominent than Mr Murdoch. Some of what he said was downright wrong or misleading.
For example: He blames Australians for not engaging with the rest of the world, and especially with East Asia, yet he neglected to mention that it was his corporate pals – among whom he has a lot more influence than have you or me – who consistenctly and foolishly declined to employ native-born Australians with fluency in East Asian languages and with easy familiarity among the peoples in that region – and – who declined to employ native-born Australians with cosmopolitan attitudes and extensive experience in the region but who did not have formal degrees. He would have been better off doing a bit of quiet arm-twisting among his recalcitrant business buddies than preaching to the Australian populace at large about the evils of isolationism.
Is Mr Murdoch part of the solution or was he part of the problem?
“…his corporate pals – among whom he has a lot more influence than have you or me – who consistenctly and foolishly declined to employ native-born Australians with fluency in East Asian languages and with easy familiarity among the peoples in that region – and – who declined to employ native-born Australians with cosmopolitan attitudes and extensive experience in the region but who did not have formal degrees.”
Graham, can I ask what you are referring to here? I have studied asian languages for a long time and know a significant number of friends and classmates who have ended up being employed throughout Asia. I have never heard of the problems that you are referring to here. I’m also not sure of the significance of specifying “East” Asia (ie. China, Japan, Korea) in your comment, especially given that this particular region of Asia is where many Aussie expats are employed.
Perhaps Murdoch is referring to the general reluctance of Australians to learn about Asia & Asian lanaguages in adulthood.
My experience teaching and learning languages is that there is FAR more interest in the languages and civilisation of Europe than those of the Asian region. Perhaps this is not surprising given the ethnic heritage of most Australians but I do think Murdoch (and Rudd – to give him due credit) are on to a very important point here regarding the general reluctance of Australians to intellectually engage with the asian region.
Asian languages are often thought to be too difficult and asian culture as an exoticism or perhaps something too foreign to be worthy of serious consideration. Hopefully Rudd’s policy of pumping money into asian languages in schools will yield some beneficial results in the future.
Ah yes, forgot Chris , *8. What I meant was, their attempt to follow Foxtel and have multiple channels running rubbish, instead of just the one. And perish the thought that reality should stop for sport.
But BTW, why should Foxtel’s grabbing of sport prevent a reasonable amount of good sport being on free to air.
But then, that question and the related question of the use and distribution of multi channels is part of a wider discussion about how people like Howard and Murdoch, etc ( rather than the scapegoated teh left ) have throttled the promise of new technology.
To shorten Murdoch’s point into one sentence:
Australians will have to work hard and take responsibility for their own future.
This statement would be, to many, sacreligious. (ie, if you fail, there is no safety net provided, and China, India et al will NOT be providing a safety net for Australians)
Kim – Philosopher King Rupe
.
It is only due to the magnificent generosity of his Holiness the Emperor Rupert the First that you will be permitted to keep your head attached to your neck. He is an Emperor and no mere King like his vassel George II. Please amend this sarcastic take on his words of pearly wisdom immediately in line with Vicomte de Bolt’s recommendations (replace the word ‘fantasy’ with the phrase ‘undeniable reality’) and ensure that you release daily priase of Rupert’s chosen one the Baron Malcolm.
Yes SATP, from the man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But then, what is the actual measure of success, as a human being?
But then, what is the actual measure of success, as a human being?
.
Is there one? You’ve gotta admit that turning an Adelaide newspaper into the world’s largest media empire is.. above average, somewhat.
Ghengis Khan created an empire by sacking superior civilisations, and Al Capone makes a good third example.
no. 43
your disrespect noted, both by le Roi, and his ACTUALLY chosen one, le Prince Rudd.
He may have been born with a silver teaspoon in his mouth, but boy oh boy, has he ever turned it into something.
er.. Rupert Murdoch is guilty of many things, but swinging the lead isn’t one of them.
The measure of success as a human being? Definitions vary. However allowing China/India to trample our standard of living is unlikely to be “success” in anybody’s handbook.
Murdoch’s first Boyer lecture interested me for two reasons.
Firstly, he looked amazingly good for a very old man. I was trying to see the stitch lines on his very excellent facelift, and wondering whether his tan was makeup or solar. His stumbling speech patterns gave the game away though..
The other reason was the strange disconnect between his identification of Australia’s weaknesses, such as a decaying public education system (and slow progress in reconconciliation and the republic); and his ideas for the future, straight out of the usual neocon songbook, such as getting rid of bludgers, drowning government in the bathtub etc.
The private sector, and the trickle down effect, cannot fix public education, Mr Murdoch. Get used to it, old son.
What we have here is an old man from Manhattan with a painting on the wall reminding him of the frontier Australia of his youth, addled by a touch of the Wendys in singing the praises of asian economic growth of the most brutal and planet-destroying kind…but I will be listening to rest of his lectures to see where he goes on public education. Vouchers? You betcha!
And Kim’s line about the ABC is spot on:….”journos such as Fran Kelly, Chris Uhlmann and Michael Brissenden constantly reciting opposition talking points and doing their world weary cynicism thing…the ABC’s political reporters seem to take their cues from whatever the current News Limited line is.”
During the Howard years most of us were fixated on the ludicrously partisan appointments to the ABC Board, arguing that its politicisation would infect ABC news and analysis. In fact, these right wing dingbats could do little to change to the “culture” at the ABC, but those lower down the line could, behind closed doors.
It took about a decade of long marching under various idiotic CEOs like Shier, to “clean out” the news room stables of all those hard-working and highly talented news writers and researchers who had studied their trade for years at the ABC under the very best, and replace them with spunky young news writers and researchers who read the Murdoch press every morning to find the necessary “balance” in writing the news bulletins and feeding presenters their lines.
The results can be heard on every ABC radio news bulletin throughout the day. Any announcement by the government is immediately “balanced” with a contrary statement by our floundering opposition, however banal and confused. And you would have read the same rubbish in The Australian that morning. This is not reporting the news, its just following the press gallery around in a circle.
But don’t get me started on my absolute bete noir. Why is it that every ABC radio news bulletin has to devote half of its air time to reporting on bloody sport. I am sick to death of having to hear all through the day about some sports jock being charged with drunken violence or sexual harrassment, how another sportsman has a painful groin injury, and whether the next farnarkling game in woop woop will go ahead on schedule because of possible rain. Spare me, please.
I don’t think things have changed much at the ABC since the change of government. When Howard was in government the ABC also constantly recited Labor’s opposition talking points as well.
Agreed that there is too much emphasis on sports reporting (and celebrities!), but apparently others want to hear it
grace said gracefully “Why is it that every ABC radio news bulletin has to devote half of its air time to reporting on bloody sport.”
Oh, I dunno…because it’s supposed to be a national broadcaster? publicly funded? holding up a mirror to the nation in which it dwells?? It’s not yet narrow-casting. Many of the taxpayers are very interested in sport, grace. Many play sports. Do try to get out and about, a bit more. Look around.
cheerio
Melbourne Cup Day, 2008.
Hey different Chris, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the ABC gave anything like the same airtime to the opposition during Howard’s tenure.
Grace is spot on. During Howard’s magnificent reign, every other news bulletin began, “Prime Minister John Howard….” Now every other bulletin begins “Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull” This morning it was Julie Bishop’s turn. And don’t get me started on AM’s coverage of the US elections, ‘war hero’ McCain and all!
” And Kim’s line about the ABC is spot on:….”journos such as Fran Kelly, Chris Uhlmann and Michael Brissenden constantly reciting opposition talking points and doing their world weary cynicism thing…the ABC’s political reporters seem to take their cues from whatever the current News Limited line is.” ”
Actually, I feel that it is not just that these particular individuals are “constantly reciting opposition talking points”. That would be OK in itself and could be considered just fair reporting.
The problem is that they treat the latest opposition aggenda as a god given truth, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. And, Chris (a different one), all three have been clearly in the Liberal camp since well before the election.
“Many of the taxpayers are very interested in sport, grace.”
Just how many listeners are that interested in sport, every hour of the day, Ambigulous? Do we know?
If you got out a bit more, you might notice that people are very interested in the weather these days, that most women are not very interested in groin injuries, and that art galleries have higher attendance rates than sports events.
And yes, today is the exception. So what’s your bet?
On the sport issue Grace is quite correct. The ABC 7.00 television news is a good example. The sport usually begins at about 7.13. Not exactly a proper coverage of general local and o/s news you would have to say.
Nope. Think back to this time in the last election cycle. Was Kim Beazley leading most of the politics related stories?
Yes grace, everyone’s interested in the weather, and my regional and statewide ABC radio covers weather forecasts very well indeed; I’d like to hear more meteorology and climate topics too, but many non-farmers would be bored witless.
You’re right about art galleries, and the ABC still gives too little coverage to books, art, photography, dance, film etc. while classical and contemporary music gets a fair run. But these are only my opinions and tastes. There is still a wider public to serve.
My tips are as follows:
“The Age” online will continue to slide downhill on the glitz/gossip slippery slope, until it stops.
The Canberra Press Gallery will continue to be lazy, opportunistic, herdlike and semi-competent.
Foolishness will abound.
LP will serve as a corrective and emetic where needed.
Bahnisch will rule.
Bookies will prosper.
All bets are off!
Melb. Cup Day
Is that a good thing?
Ambigulous, you need to get in touch with your feminine side.
The question du jour, which you omitted to address, is: are women interested in groin injuries?
Honestly, many of these non-men are bored witless….
To be fair to the ABC, grace, they are the only network really that even makes a pretence at covering women’s sport. Aside from tennis, that is.
Granted Kim.
Yeah , you all see it.
What you are seem to be refusing to explicate upon is, WHY is labor (Conroy, Rudd etc) reinforcing rather tthan ameliorating the situation??
Kummon, SOMEBODY!!
Some of you are supposedly well-qualified academics. Something a bit deeper, explaining why the likes of Rudd’scabinet and parliamentary colleagues etc have done nothing but REINFORCE this and a stack of other Howard policies, since winning government.
Do they beleive the systems propaganda, or are they cowards, or just evil and cynical.
Please…
BTW, speaking of Trioli, noted her “better half”
Russell Skeleton copping another round under the Media Watch microscope for more spinning on ethnic/racial issues, this time involving the Intervention.
ohmigod she didn’t marry Russell Skelton did she? that old guy from decades ago, when he was a bright young reporter on “The Age”, wrote some good stuff; oh Virginia: there IS a Santa Claus !!!!
Is that enough of my feminine side grace? not a pretty sight, needs a facelift, etc.
I tried to step around the groin-injury topic grace, because it’s gross, uncouth, delicate, and us blokes – how did you guess?? – find it a teensy-weensy bit ICKY
Then we must tell the ABC, Ambigulous, that women find the groin reporting witless boring, and men find it all a bit icky.
And that’s a wrap.
Perhaps we could treat groin injuries with hermetics, like Kim reckons.
I didn’t watch Murdoch . Got the impression he wanted to destroy OUR welfare state. Homeless starving on the streets, no national health system. And I don’t think its a 19th century education system. At least, back then, they taught kids to read and write.
Well maybe there could be another inquiry to look at placement of stories as well as frequency
I haven’t noticed anything much different (I get most of my tv news/current affairs from the ABC), but obviously others have and I’m sure that people’s own bias has an effect as well. Besides as much as govts and their supporters hate it, I’d rather a news service be overcritical of a government and their policies than undercritical.
I’d probably agree that Beazley wasn’t as prominent, but neither was Nelson (or was simply on to be laughed at
Turnbull seems to be more effective at using the media, and Rudd certainly was very good at getting exposure as opposition leader.
I think we get less sport than that on the Canberra ABC news. But I’d be happier if they just split the sports news off into a different program so I didn’t have to fast-forward over it
But that’s the point made above. Running with Oppo lines is not really being critical. There are an enormous number of policy areas where scrutiny – well informed and researched scrutiny – could valuably be applied by the national broadcaster to the gov’t but all we get is the dessicated results of the “balance” doctrine. Rather than doing counts of who got their bit on and all that blah (although the introduction of the balance police has no doubt increased the number of stories leading with opposition stuff) the ABC would be much better served by much deeper thinking about what constitutes news, analysis and information in the public interest.
But that would take some work Mark, You know, research, a bit of thought, maybe a bit of writing beyond regurgitation of a press release.
A certain media baron talks of bludgers, but he needs to look a bit closer to home.
And, Adrian, it won’t work when the idiot government keeps doing a “Howard lite” and underfunding it!
But it must instead give tax cuts to idiots like Murdoch, so they can run dumbed-down media with content that puts people into the idiots category; out of touch with reality.
What happens then?
You get situations like the one with the American public, where half think that dinosaurs frolicked around six thousdand years ago, lending credibility to the the theory that civilisations got accidentally started planting corn seedlings in mounds of dinosaur sh-t.
(refer episode ten, “Flintstones”).
……………..
No worse than the Greek legend about soldiers emerging from buried dragon’s teeth, I suppose.
You probably disagree, but I think in general the ABC does a pretty good job in the news and current affairs departments. Especially when compared to what else is out there and with the funding they have.
I sort of thought that was his point. It’s not as if you need to be able to read to be an effective consumer of most Murdoch product.
Ha! Especially if reading promotes thought.
#49 ABC sport has become a joke. I listened to the coverage of the test from India on the weekend and the level of condescension from the 2 ABC commentators towards India and Indian culture was sickening. Once upon a time they didn’t even comment on such things, they stuck to the game. Now they try and pass themselves off as comedian, editorialist and travel writer. And the fawning interviews with “Aussie sports heroes” are vomit inducing.
This has been most interesting, and close to my current obsession with the bete noir, the ABC. The idea of Virginia Trioli hosting a breakfast political program is my idea of hell. She was local breakfast radio host in Melbourne for some time in the 90’s, and was just a really annoying version of Jon Faine. The ABC is pretty rapidly turning into Fox as far as I can make out.
Jon Faine himself can be pretty bloody annoying, f’rinstance when he’s trying to stir up his elderly listeners into talk-back outrage. He has the usual ABC thin skin when any talback caller accuses him of bias or poor interviewing style.
But his current replacement is worse: a bit of a dill. Perhaps la Trioli could become a backroom person? Copy editor?
Patrick B, I heard that too and was astonished — couldn’t believe my ears. And couldn’t help wondering what Steve Waugh, longtime knowledgeable enthusiast for all things Indian, thought if he was listening.
What’s astonishing? Its the same attitude that used to head towards Pakistan and the Windies, now India is providing the challenge. It’s just that in this crass, anti-sensitivity/ pc, tabloided age they no longer even think to, let alone try, to ameliorate it.
They are the sports equivalents to the ABC state radio stations who try to go head to head with morons like Laws and Jones, now that only ratings matter.
For the parliamentary equivalent, look to cretins like the appalling Steve Ciobo and Bel Neal.
The ABC coverage of the test matches in India has been terrible, only saved by the expert commentaters like Mike Coward, who actually know their subject and have some respect for the culture of the host country. Glenn Mitchell (?) is particulary bad in the patronising stakes, and should be nowhere near a microphone let alone leading the broadcast from India.
Poor judgement regarding presenters and programming seems to be endemic in the ABC at the moment.
The other reason was the strange disconnect between his identification of Australia’s weaknesses, such as a decaying public education system (and slow progress in reconconciliation and the republic); and his ideas for the future, straight out of the usual neocon songbook, such as getting rid of bludgers, drowning government in the bathtub etc.
I couldn’t believe my ears. Rupert Murdoch? scolding the government about its shabby treatment of public education? Bring. it. on!
But yes, he’s probably just in favour of a voucher system or some halfassed neoliberal solution like that.
a predictable amalgam of centre-right neo-liberal talking points…
You lot are still trotting out this nonsense 24/7. Ever thought of getting a job? Ah, LP the gift cliche that just cannot stop giving. Thanks Kim, you’ve made my day.
But wait, there’s more!
Aristotelian Dark Ages Que?
“Ever thought of getting a job?”
That’s the problem Franklin. The A.B.C. is only employing right wing nut jobs.
Stop the hogging.
Paul – Ghengis Khan created an empire by sacking superior civilisations, and Al Capone makes a good third example.
.
Al Capone and Ghengis Khan used violence. Murdoch doesn’t (as much).
.
Steve at Pub – However allowing China/India to trample our standard of living is unlikely to be “success” in anybody’s handbook.
.
And Murdoch did this how? China and India have been the centres of the world economy for millenia. We just took a recent and temporary lead. What were supposed to do? Nuke ‘em?
Murdoch is right about the 19th century education system. We haven’t deployed new knowledge about the way the human brain works or the individualizing aspects of information technology to teaching.
.
Yeah I know: Whatever.
.
Did anyone notice that he advocates the expansion of NATO into a global military alliance of democratic states? That’s worth a discussion. Except geopolitics doesn’t feature much in Oz political discourse.
Adrien, as someone has already pointed out we don’t have a C19th education system, we have a late-C20th one. (Which is not to say you’re not partly right about our educators not using the knowledge we have about how the brain works. IT, otoh, won’t cut it, and I’m speaking as an IT professional.) A C19th education system would’ve thrashed some literacy into the kiddies.
Also, as has also been pointed out already, most of what Murdoch said was either so obvious it didn’t need to be said, or flat out wrong, shallow, and straight out of the Thatcherite bible. He’s very much yesterday’s man.
Adrien,
because Murdoch is not roaming the slums of Rio or the camps in Africa personally machine-gunning folk, doesn’t reduce his culpability in the halting of the forward march of civilisation over the last thirty years. The dumbing down of western civilisation relates directly to the coinciding wars, chronic starvation and illness; third world poverty driven by consumerist wastage in the guilt -tripped West, that has, in effect, resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
We hopefully won’t do a Reynolds vBrunton argument about whether the Aborigines were only massacred by the whites,or died indirectly also of famine and epedemics, because we know that death is death and the world is macrocosmic of the Australian example. Indifference, including inculcated indifference kills as effectively as any gun or sword.
Either situation can only occur when people create powerful myths to obscure the reality of what happens. Convincing myths enabled the genocide of Aborigines and allow the tolerance of the frightful conditions of the world at large that future generations will see, from a distance, to be as amoral as we recognise the history of aboriginals to be.
The pen, unfortunately, IS mightier than the sword.
Goebells, for one, proved this modern truism earlier in the twentieth century. Never shot anyone himself, but his efforts with people’s minds and malicious vandalism of cultural symbols contributed as much as any one to the slaughter of sixty million people world wide, as Hitler, Himmler and Tojo.
Civilisation has been greivously maimed worst still from the inside by Murdoch, with his fear and McCarthyism and lies; his hatred of environmentalism and use value, his promotion of the despicable Hayekian and Huntingdonian fascisms and their practitioners- Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Howard, etc,so as to make him a menace equal to any sword waving barbarian.
Remember, the theme of the thread is the nearing of the end of the dumbing down process of media and the rise of heterogeneity and homogeneity as dominant facets for a civilisation that sits stupefied as millions die in a month in the giant open air concentration camp that is Africa, let alone the other third world hellholes.
But having read your recent comments at the Hayek thread, you probably would have little problem in grasping my point.
You give Murdoch a tad too much credit there, Walter.
Any deficiency in results would not be through failure of intent on those of the ilk.
And I thought I didn’t like him! I’m only an amateur.
I just think of the years I’ve been alive and all the chances civisation has had and had to, move on and how time and time again, feudalists like Murdoch have been there to block the way.
Sorry to be a party-pooper….
Rupert Murdoch said: “Tens of thousands of people are going to be deprived of these opportunities if we continue to tolerate a public education system that effectively writes off whole segments of Australian society.
In short, we have a 21st century economy with a 19th century education system, and it is leaving too many children behind. That is an injustice to these citizens, and it puts a future burden on Australian society.”
Those don’t sound to me the words of a feudalist. He called the children [poor? indigenous?] “these citizens”. Sounds like the words a democrat would use, Citizen.
Hmm, I’ll check on that. You did say a “ninetenth century economy” and a “twenty first century education system”, didn’t you?
Paul – Adrien, as someone has already pointed out we don’t have a C19th education system, we have a late-C20th one.
.
Please think structure not content. Today kids sit at desks facing blackboards. They’re grouped together in classrooms as anonymous numbers. Just like the 19th century.
.
Also, as has also been pointed out already, most of what Murdoch said was either so obvious it didn’t need to be said, or flat out wrong, shallow, and straight out of the Thatcherite bible. He’s very much yesterday’s man.
.
What was flat-out wrong? That the planet needs the benefit of the doubt? Was that wrong?
.
Murdoch’s old yes. But he’s older than you think he is. Thirty years of neo-liberalism may’ve caused you to forget that his career started more than two decades before the election of Ronald Reagan. Murdoch first came to prominence here in Australia over this bit of controversy. Not exactly the arch-Rightist sorta thing you’d expect.
.
Murdoch’s given quite a few interviews over the last little while. In them he’s endorsed Obama, asserted that capitalism needs increased regulation and expressed firm views that the Environment is the big issue for the 21st century. He’s a media baron. And like all such he derives his influence from the fact that populations choose their governments and fire them. If this wasn’t the case Murdoch’d have no power. His influence is curtailed by the requirement that he changes with the population. There’s a mutual feedback loop at play.
.
What I perceive is that he’s changing his policy. He recongiznes that Neo-Liberalism is finished, that there’s a new paradigm and he’s going there. Given his huge influence I think it might be opportune for the Left to take strategic advantage of it.
.
But as usual the Left maintains strategic illiteracy as a Cardinal Virtue.
Paul further – We hopefully won’t do a Reynolds vBrunton argument about whether the Aborigines were only massacred by the whites,or died indirectly also of famine and epedemics, because we know that death is death and the world is macrocosmic of the Australian example.
.
Aborigines were massarcred by whites and died indirectly of famine and disease (and even directly). Thinking that this is a microsm of the world is not entirely untrue but, like the rest of this comment, romantic and simplistic. Essentially it’s not wrong. But it’s not useful either.
.
Your assertion that Murdoch is feudal for example is right and wrong. The private sector does resemble medieval realpolitik. The same rigid hierarchies feature. The same ruthlessness. Despite rhetorical adulations of free markets the world is still very much beholden to Imperium. One of the techniques of this Imperium is the use of laissez faire rhetoric to force developing nations to drop tariff barriers whilst the G8 persist in protecting theirs. Incidentally Murdoch made a point of saying that had to go. Another thing he got right.
.
As for his dumbing down. This is true. I find it difficult these days to find hard news. Not just in Herald-Sun but in The Age as well. It’s all about Britney Spears debauchery and some spurious study conducted somewhere that tells you something that’s already bloody well obvious but because it’s about sex you waste time reading it. That says more about us than it does about him however.
.
Is it worth noting however that Murdoch brought the Simpsons to the world?
.
His strategy again is this: He buys ‘popular’ newspapers and bumbs them down. And it works. What does that say. He buys newspapers specifically for the Intelligentsia (or those of us that think we are) and produces them at a loss. What does that say?
.
Yes he’s part of the Hearst culture. But demonizing him doesn’t get you anywhere. I wish the Left would endeavour to be more like Marx not less like him. Marx understood that world was made of impersonal historical forces. Murdoch is simply a face that we can put to these. But he’s subject to them as much as the rest of us. The idea that because bad stuff happened and the Right were in ascendance that progress came to a grinding hault is just nonsense. As always there’s progress and regression, depends where you look. It’s called history.
.
A fact I suspect he understands. When he was at school he was a Marxist. They called him red Rupert at Geelong Grammar and Oxford.
If this wasn’t the case Murdoch’d have no power. His influence is curtailed by the requirement that he changes with the population. There’s a mutual feedback loop at play.
Still awaiting evidence of this happening at the Australian though…
Adrien, I do remember the Max Stuart case (just). I also remember that Murdoch, having been threatened with imprisonment by Tom Playford abandoned Stuart and trested his editor (Rivett?) very badly.
I’m not trying to be snarky, Adrien, but how do you know? Do you have recent experience of actually being in/observing school education?
As long ago as 1979, we spent most of our grade 7 year sitting around tables doing group work.
As long ago as 1979, we spent most of our grade 7 year sitting around tables doing group work.
.
Yes so do I Mark. Is the poverty of imagination so dire that that’s mistaken for a paradigm shift? Jeez.
David – I’m not saying he’s a nive guy. I’m saying casting him as the villain in a Pantomime to Explain the Shithouse World doesn’t help. He’s a ruthless sumbitch. Ruthless sumbitches make the historical wheels grind ’round (usually they gring bones).
.
Kat – It’ll be long term and subtle and he’s not going to abandon his quest for marketshare and global conquest, just modify it a tad.
.
And also his papers are 90% utter shite. Fairfax on the other hand is completely different. It’s either 89% or 92% utter shite. I forget which.
Mark, you’ve got to remember that everybody’s a friggin’ expert when it comes to education.
Mind you some people seem to think that they’re a friggin’ expert on everything under the sun!
Reminds me of an old Weddings Parties Anything song, Mondays Experts, only now we have 24/7 experts.
I’ve never claimed to be an expert on anything. I had an experience of education. Fairly extensive considering that it involved 9 schools, in three countries, in four jurisdictions under 5 different systems. And yet…
.
Everywhere the same bland lack of any sense that we’re actually all very different and that, in the words of Vaclev Havel, Nature seeks diversity not uniformity.
.
But I guess I should shut my mouth. After all this is
techniocracyand I’m only entitled to a view if I have a DipHead. Right?Don’t be snarky, Adrien! Of course I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that there are very likely to be all sorts of approaches to teaching now which transcend the desks and blackboard model. I’m aware of some because I’ve got friends who are teachers and I’ve done research and taught in teh evil postmodernist Maoist university Education Faculties. What I’m questioning – reasonably – is the basis for your generalisation.
Education means shite if the best a young person interested in words, ideas, communication and people persuasion can expect is a “career” in public affairs which really is nothing more than product advertising and salesmanship. These jobs will collapse in an unedifying, unregretted heap in the short-term as the economic mess bites. Who would possibly care, except the incumbents?
Why anyone would be the slightest bit interested in the unexceptional musings of an intellectual mediocrity like Rupert Murdoch whose papers champion and exonerate the John Howard’s and George Bush’s of this world beats me. Rather let the record show that the anonymous people who actually produce these papers were last night unanimously hailing and revelling in Obama’s win, seen by the most conscious as their very own win.
What I’m questioning – reasonably – is the basis for your generalisation.
.
Experience. Please demonstrate some evidence of paradigm shift that’s significant. That’s reasonable.
.
No doubt there are teachers who wish to transcend the standard model. No doubt the standard model will persist in certain ways. But what I’m arguing for (and no AGAIN it’s not some kind of Windschuttlian Cultural Warrior nonsense about the virtues of rote learning) is that we start to utlize all this new knowledge we have about the human brain, all these techniques of communication, all the realities of the modern world where, increasingly we’re not just numbers anymore but faces.
.
And start to innovate.
.
I don’t think this will happen in the context of centralized government control. Or in St Toffytwits School for Tory Twats neither. But I think the curricula’s about to succumb to conservative backlash and the reassertion of education as a means to create a certain cultural henegomy.
.
This might be desirable in the short term. A need to teach grammar to undergraduates belies something amiss. But in the long run I think we can do better. It’s not about shitting on teachers it’s simply about creating new methods. And allowing ourselves to do this.
.
Unfortunately there seems to be a resistant to even considering thinking outside the standrda paradigms of education debate as they’re currently defined – market viability and ulture War. Yawn!
.
Mao. He’s old school. Let’s get some Havel he’s my kind of
not acommie!Jinmaro – Why anyone would be the slightest bit interested in the unexceptional musings of an intellectual mediocrity like Rupert Murdoch whose papers champion and exonerate the John Howard’s and George Bush’s of this world beats me.
.
.
Because Murdoch’s not an intellectual but a media plutocrat who has a great influence on the opinions of a great many people. His were statements of policy not intellectual contributions.
.
Rather let the record show that the anonymous people who actually produce these papers were last night unanimously hailing and revelling in Obama’s win
.
As was Murdoch. Well not dancing but endorsing. This indicates a shift. Not hugely significant but tacticly – yes. Unfortunately the Left prefer the word ‘grandstand’ to the word ‘opportunity’.
.
Education means shite if the best a young person interested in words, ideas, communication and people persuasion can expect is a “career” in public affairs which really is nothing more than product advertising and salesmanship. These jobs will collapse in an unedifying, unregretted heap in the short-term as the economic mess bites. Who would possibly care, except the incumbents?
.
You are describing both my existensial dilemna and my immediate economic future here.
Sorry, Adrien, I’m unconvinced that your generalisation about the current paradigm has any basis, and that’s what I’m asking you to elucidate. I don’t believe that chalk and talk is the predominant teaching methodology any more – because I know teachers and I’m familiar with teacher education – and I’m seeking some statement of why you think it is.
I do agree that the terms of this debate are largely meaningless, because Murdoch’s own statement is waffle.
Mark I shouldn’t have to demonstrate that the standard mode of teaching hasn’t changed. You have to demonstrate the reverse. Tne burden is on you.
.
Are you saying that students no longer sit in class, at one of the deks in a row, facing a teacher who teaches pretty much the same way as they did 150 years ago? Are you? Sure I haven’t been in a pre-tertiary classroom in a while but if they effected such a radical paradigm change I think I woulda noticed it somewhere reported.
.
Formally it goes on as before. I don;t have to provide empirical evidence that that is so. If you wish to demonstrate that it’s changed please do so.
Adrien, go talk to some teachers.
I’m not going to spend my limited time on finding you links or whatever. I can assure you from my own experience that is not how teachers are trained to teach now – although obviously it’s part of the toolkit – and it’s not how teachers prefer to work. The whole point of the debate about smaller classroom sizes is that it enables a variety of teaching methodologies to minimise the amount of chalk and talk. This is well known in school education circles.
I’m not trying to do some sort of “gotcha” internetty argument – I’m merely seeking to inform, and if you want to know more rather than proceed on the basis of assumptions then I’d suggest doing some research in texts about teaching methodology.
Speaking of ABC and education: hooray for the collapse of ABC childcare today. What a complete policy disgrace – childcare for profit. Good riddance.
Perfect opportunity climate to nationalise the job lot of them, hand them over the local councils, where they should be.
So in answer to my question Mark the answer is no.
.
Trouble is you don’t follow me. I’m not talking about smaller classroom sizes or increased methods of interaction. I’ve got more radical notions in mind. How ’bout this: do we actually need schools at all? Well for the time being yes. But I reckon we can do better.
.
Unfortunately you can’t go there. The Right say: tradition, tradition, Shakespeare, Admiral Wellingtonboots, British flag harumph harumph.
.
The Left say: More money, more schools, What? That’s an idea I haven’t heard before you must be a NeoLiberal.
.
Well I’m glad to see Australia continues the fine tradition of being always absolutely third rate.
Kat – It’ll be long term and subtle and he’s not going to abandon his quest for marketshare and global conquest, just modify it a tad.
Adrien, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Left E, totally agree regarding ABC Childcare. Another capitalist failure, now in need of ’socialism’ to ensure the service keeps running.
Surely the myth of private enterprise being more capable than Govt has now been well and truly exploded?
LeftyE – the collapse of ABC “Learning” and the (I’m sure) not unrelated collapse of whoever-the-fuck owned the railway line to Darwin are proof (as if we needed any) of the superiority of Private Enterprise (TM) over publicly-owned and -run utilities.
Repeat after me until your head asplodes, “The private sector does it better, the private sector does it better, … ”
Which encapsulates exactly what was wrong with Murdoch’s senile maunderings, Adrien.
Absolutely Kat & david- and lets face it, who’s going to come in and run a full quarter of the sector now?
No one, is the answer. Its government. Good thing too. That dodgy entepreneur was living hand to mouth on govt handouts anyway, just like practically every other privatsed public service. Market analysts weren’t touching him a bargepole as long as 3 years ago.
HELLO!! TIME TO WAKE UP AND SMELL THE TRUTH: The private sector is f’n USELESS at large scale service provision of public goods.
Another woeful failure of the Howard era comes home to roost. One quarter of Australian working families have no childcare! How’s that for productivity?
Will the policy disasters of the Howard era ever end?
Although Howard was an enthusiastic fellow-traveler, LeftyE, it’s mostly down to Thatcher and Reagan.
Oh, and bastards like Friedmann.
I’m more generous: it was a worthwhile policy experiment, but one that has ended in failure. No need for recrimination – lets move on, with sensible program of nationalizing public goods (since its clearly cool to nationalise shit now, right Wall St?).